Jan
23

La Gloria Cubana Natural & Maker’s Mark

This was supposed to be an article on another evil of our progressive income tax system but my friends told me I’m more fun when I’m talking about booze and cigars. I’ve agreed to a week without thinking or writing about taxes. Tax policy articles will be postponed until next week.

Prior to the AFC championship game (go Pats!) I got some time out on the porch and decided to light up a cigar. This was not a “two regular guys” event but will serve as a quick review to hold my loyal readers over until Ryan and I get together again.

First the drink… Maker’s Mark is a solid and staple bourbon. The has been my go to whisk(e)y for quite some time. From Magic the Gathering to the halls of Moria to Munchkin it is my gamer drink of choice. If aliens landed and said “what does whisk(e)y taste like?” I’d probably start them with a glass. Sweet but not overly so, and just enough heat so you know it is there. I won’t waste too much time here because I’m sure a future review will break it down more completely. It will suffice to say I think I’d be hard pressed to find a cigar it didn’t go well with and this was no exception.

The smoke… This La Gloria Cubana had been in my humidor for a few years, not intentionally, but I just never got around to it. I think it was roughly a robusto size in a natural wrapper. From the moment I lit it I got salty flavors from it. The wrapper and the smoke reminded me of salty peanut skins or cashews. The draw was good but the burn was a little uneven and that might be because I went through a bout of fighting humidity in my humidor and this stick was in an area I found to be a particular problem. That aside, I touched it up once and we were good to go. A good winter smoke as it finished up in a reasonable amount of time. The middle was kind of flat but at the end I definitely got some floral notes that weren’t bad at all, maybe something like dried rose petals, some sweetness to the salty flavors which hung around.

I’m not sure I’d go back for seconds on this one, maybe it died in my humidor, maybe I smoked it too fast because the game was coming on. It wasn’t terrible, not an epic cigar either.

 

Jan
15

Montecristo #2 & MacPhail’s Highland Park 24 – A “Two Regular Guys Review”

Now for something completely different… In this post Paul & Ryan will share their reviews of a cigar and scotch. The cigar in question was a Montecristo #2 and the scotch we paired it with was a MacPhail’s Collection bottling of a 24 year old Highland Park (which incidentally came from my new favorite scotch source, and I don’t mind giving them the free plug, Federal Wine and Spirits in Boston). We are not professional cigar or scotch reviewers. Consider this the opinion of two “regular guys” Paul/Pdogg wrote this review blind before reading Ryan’s review below, so there was no possibility of influence.

Paul:

Being a more experienced wine drinker and evaluator I certainly know and respect the concept of the setting and situation playing into the review. These two exceptional specimens were enjoyed in Ryan’s garage, on a cold, dark windy Friday. The perfect setting! :)

The scotch was consumed from coffee cups and here were my thoughts: This is classically what I’ve come to expect in my experience thus far with Highland Park whiskey. The color is light and a more transparent golden tan and the odors are of oak and smokey peat. The taste is initially a bit powerful on the first sip but immediately mellows out and you get the semi sweet and smokey notes that remind me of caramel. The finish is long but not excessive which makes it a great pairing to the cigar. Overall a very well balanced enjoyable scotch that doesn’t take over the smoke.

The cigar was a classic for sure, the #2 size is a 6 1/8 x 52 ring in a Pirámide hand made with Cuban tobacco. Other Cubans I have had have hit much harder, like the drink this was a very balanced experience. I would describe the initial tastes as a mix of spices and maybe some nutty notes. The burn and construction were very good. Ryan had to touch his up once but mine was even and well drawing all the way through, the ash was a deep graphite gray but didn’t hang on very long. In the middle I picked up what I described as a cedar taste and the end carried through the spicy part. It didn’t dump smoke, with two of them going in the garage it wasn’t full although when my wife and I left later that night there was still a pleasant aroma coming from the now closed building. I think this in the top range of sticks I have had thus far, but the price and availability is a complete downer. This is an amazing smoke and the best example of a Cuban I’ve tried but there are better values to be had.

Ryan:

OK, first the scotch:  It was amazingly smooth.  While definitely a sipping drink you could easily just drink it and not feel any fire or burn on the way down.  It left you with a nice warmth.  I generally have to cut my scotch with some ice, but I could easily drink this neat.  It was that easy going down.  I found the consistency thin as opposed to some thick syrupy ones I have had.  The initial flavor was sweet which lead into some earthy undertones and then a big smokey finish.  The first sip was so smokey that it almost bordered on good BBQ.  That’s not to say I didn’t like it.  Just the opposite, the smoke was a great finish.

The cigar was like a night with Katie Morgan.  It was fun, smooth, and sexy, but I woke up with a nasty taste in my mouth the next morning Seriously, the cigar was different than I was expecting.  It was not harsh at all, but I think I have had more flavorful cigars in the past.  I would say it was a very mild cigar.  I can’t say i found any big flavors in it.  The cigar was an easy smoke and didn’t have that pungent cigar “stink” you sometimes get, but it is the only cigar that I have ever still been able to taste the next morning.  I have had some cigars from Drew Estates with what I would say had more flavor but they were WAY harsher than this Habanos.  However, maybe the cigar being lighter on the flavor made it pair better with the scotch.

I hope you enjoyed this review… let me know if “Two Regular Guys” reviewing what we consume is something you want to see more of.

Jan
12

The Information Diet

I feel the need to write my first book review of The Information Diet by Clay Johnson. This type of content is not intended to be a regular feature of this blog but I haven’t written for a while, since I’ve been spending so much of my very limited free time on other projects.

In the interest of full disclosure I have known the author since college. Clay was one of my computer science cohort’s roommate. The first time I met him, he was sitting on a the heating unit of the dorm room, smoking a cigarette out the open window and told me about a project he was working on to inject human beings into the internet search process. It was a different world, the dot com boom was in full effect, I had more spare time than I could possibly imagine these days and any internet oriented venture was worth taking a shot at. I helped out for a few searches, then we graduated and went our separate ways.  I wouldn’t say we “kept in touch” but I kept in touch with the circle that knew Clay and was closer to them. Out of college my politics took a hard right and I went full on neo-con (a condition of which I hope I am permanently cured, more about this in some future post). I had heard Clay was working for campaigns and companies that I wasn’t supposed to like. When I bumped into him again on social media I was ready to meet an intellectual adversary.  I was changing however, and The Information Diet was a book that came along while I was already well on the road to recovery. More on this below…

First of all this book is a quick read, a virtue in a work targeted at those suffering from information overload and over consumption. The general premise of The Information Diet is admittedly simple enough to deduce from the title. The ways in which we consume information and the impacts information has on us and our well being are comparable to our relationships with food. What follows from that are truths that we must realize if we are to be responsible consumers of information. I’ll be honest, I expected preaching and lecturing about bad information and a holier than thou attitude as comes from many “self help” books, videos, and sources. This book is anything but, the strongest parts of the message come from personal stories of the author’s own troubles with information that I couldn’t help sympathize and empathize with. Other reviewers have cited the personal anecdotes as a negative but I think this is quite the contrary and essential to the message of the book. While I won’t spoil all of the content, a key observation is that healthier information, like healthier food, often is consumed closer to the source. What is closer to the source of someone trying to make this point than personal experience itself? In my opinion this is the only way to hammer home the point. Without the personal touch the book and message would be dry. The discussion of a Democrat operative’s (the author) meeting of Karl Rove and the impact it had is in itself worth the price of admission for this book. Knowing Clay’s previous involvement with technology and being a geek myself I must say I find the appendix that is essentially a call to arms for programmers to be particularly poignant and relevant to the world today. Those of us that work with computers and information systems must realize and respect the power of information in this world. I’ll say if you code, do IT or something related, this is a must read chapter. A very good concept that I had never completely considered was a detailed in a relatively small section of the book that reminds the reader that we are not computer systems. We cannot consume, process, and store endless volumes of information. We all must be reminded of this fact as we interact with a world creating and distributing mass qualities of information. You can’t know it all, and don’t try.

The ideas of a confirmation bias and consumption of entertainment disguised as news were not new concepts for me (I have been wrestling with them for a long time)  but there are definitely some very relevant takes on these topics in The Information Diet. As a former addict to right wing talk radio I will go even further than the junk food analogy and say some information is more like a drug. Not only are you hard wired to consume what is entertaining and makes you feel good, you crave more of it and yes it does destroy your ability to interact with society. This viewpoint is definitely touched on in the book, especially in the sections related to recommendations on dealing with information over consumption and abundance. While the author makes some recommendations, it is evident that the proposed method is simply adjusting and thinking about consumption and  is not quitting “cold turkey”. That would probably hurt…

Are there negatives I see with this approach to information? I would be lying if I said I didn’t think so. One analogy I cannot square with is the recommendation to consume information about local problems and local topics over larger national and global ones. This concept needs discussion and development as we live in a rapidly changing global world where seemingly small events half a world away can impact our personal lives. While we are small parts of global events and global information we live in a world where word and impact travels fast. Local news and local information is stressed as part of the recommendation and remediation plan but larger events compound to impact our lives. I have also found tools like Twitter very useful in my professional life, up to the minute news and commentary is critical in a business where a worm, virus, or skilled adversary somewhere very distant can be an instant threat in the time it takes a packet to get to you. Being “plugged in” is a required trait in infosec operations today.  I can’t therefore immediately act on what was essentially recommendation to ditch anything on my desktop with a little number by the title (although I like the concept and will think it over before I ever add ANOTHER tool with a number by the title :) ).  It is clear that the author uses these tools as well so I know I’m not saying anything that shouldn’t be already understood. Realize that while implementing these types of solutions for yourself you are still living in a world that consumes high volumes of all types of information very rapidly.

In the style of the author I’ll close with some personal anecdotes and recommendation that strikes to the core of the message of this book. I have for a while been tuning my information intake (long before I ran into this book). To continue the story above… When Clay first friended me on Facebook I was coming down from a 10 year high. I had just realized all of the positions I had held in political life were probably wrong and were actually scary to me. I however, knew he was a Democrat insider for much of the same time and a secret part of me wanted to blast him. I read his blogs and his updates about a book project and I was waiting for it to come out so I could read “the other side”.  To the contrary I realized Clay was writing about something I agreed with nearly 100%. I was on the journey to correcting my bad information habits when this book came out and maybe reading it is in itself a form of confirmation bias. If so, so be it! Before I read this book discussions and debate with friends made me realize a lot of my information consumption was hurting me. I have a 2 hour commute on a bad day, and I was filling it with right wing talk radio.  It was killing me, making me fat, and stupid. That amount of time (I choose to take the long commute for what it affords me in opportunity) can be better used. I changed my habits to consuming books on tape, lectures on topics that interested me and lowered my dosage of processed information. It works… I recommend reading this book and integrating the parts that work for you into your consumption habits. Don’t go overboard, but cut out the obvious crap. You’ll be happier. For me, this is a daily struggle, and a single status update or blog post can suck me back in. Stay above the fray, consume quality information and you’ll be ok. (I keep telling myself that anyway)

Visit Clay’s site, check this out and give it at read! http://www.informationdiet.com/

Oct
19

Lost Your Car? Big Brother Is Here To Help!

It was somewhere in San Diego just before my flight home when I realized I actually had no idea where my car was parked in Logan central parking. Generally I remembered parking it and it was near the edge of the garage somewhere and I thought it was on a floor less than 3. We were taking the red eye back and I knew I would be looking for it around 6am after jet lag.

When I walked up to the parking pay station in Boston I was still quite unsure as to where the car actually was and I mumbled to an employee I was traveling with “I hope I can find the car now.” A nice passerby that overheard said, “The location is on your receipt.”

This is one of those moments where Big Brother hits you like a ton of bricks. Sure as he said it… there was the location of my parking spot on the receipt the machine spit out. Even as a techie who knew these things went on I quickly had a moment of creepy panic. These cameras are showing up everywhere and there are legitimate privacy concerns for sure. A quick Google search of “parking lot license plate camera” turns up a ton of hits. I seem to recall a recent story of some mall actually putting the data on the web as well but I cannot find it at the moment. I don’t know anything about the use of this data or the systems it sits on with regard to Logan, but I do know there’s a big database in the sky with the comings and goings of all the cars in the airport, who owns them, where they were flying to, when they came back.

I do the Facebook thing and I’m not a complete privacy paranoid but I do make it a point not to share when I’m gone on vacation or business but this event hammered home the reality that at all times you are being tracked, chose to release the data or not. Beyond the porno-x-ray-scanners at the airport and the pat downs and the security screens they were taking pictures of my license plates “for my convenience.”

I don’t know if this is “good” or “bad”, as most technology goes, the moral judgement is all in how it is used. It did serve as a reminder that even as I exited the “secure area” of the airport and left Big Brother behind for the night they were still watching us. Maybe most troubling of all is I probably would have never noticed this “feature” if I didn’t forget where I parked last week.

Sep
16

That Which is Not Seen in IT Security Compliance

I was recently listening to a Pauldotcom podcast episode (if you have not heard any of these and you have any infosec interest at all, run over there and start downloading) and there was a side comment in one of the interview sections about the cost of compliance being a possible drain on real innovations that will help to address information security problems. This struck an immediate thought in my head that the statement and general concept absolutely must be true. I want to expand on that concept with my personal thoughts and experiences with compliance as an IT security professional. These are my personal opinions only and should not be construed as the opinion of my employer or consulting customers.

The costs of compliance with infosec impacting regulations is definitely huge as anyone working in IT security today can attest. Compliance with particular federal regulations impacting IT security and networking was a topic I frequently wrote and spoke about at pharmaceutical industry conferences just a few years ago. This is just one industry vertical example with IT security compliance requirements embedded in federal regulations, depending on the scope and area of business for any given operation HIPAA, Sarbanes-Oxley, GLBA, MA 201 CMR 17.00 and similar state privacy regulations, Cal. Civ. Code 1798.82 1798.29 and similar breach notification regulations, Customs and Border Protection regulations, 21 CFR Part 11, and so on as well as industry standards such as PCI DDS etc. may be in play. Depending on the size of the organization and the particular regulations in question the costs attributable to compliance vary. The statement that rings true in most studies I have seen is that the cost burden is definitely higher per capita on smaller organizations and most of the costs are attributable to compliance with actual laws and regulations rather than industry standards or practice. As is stated in the survey linked above costs for non-compliance are definitely higher than the costs of compliance, that I do not dispute.

These findings are definitely trends I personally have observed as intuitively true. The problem with these compliance efforts is not that they enforce minimum security standards on organizations, it is that they provide a false sense of security to business leaders, investors, and customers and cause an allocation of budget and resources that might not make sense in their absence. Compliance with these regulations, creation of, monitoring, and auditing of controls and systems put in place to achieve compliance eats up a large percentage of IT security time and budget. I have long asserted the technical and process controls in the majority of regulations I have experience with from an IT security perspective are common sense and should be in place already in any reasonably sized mature organization. The “cost of non-compliance” is the cost of dealing in one way or another with the resulting incidents and the return on investment for IT security as a risk reduction mechanism is an easy case to build in this context. When compliance alone is used as the basis for an IT security business case or return on investment calculation the goal is shifted from reduction of real business impact to passing an audit to avoid fines, fees, and other statutory type costs. The parts of these regulations which are not common sense security control requirements are often those which drive levels of documentation, audit preparation, record retention etc that serve no other business purpose.

Passing an audit often stops short of reduction of real business risk in IT security. The controls required and the methods of testing are common sense, sterile, and not representative of any given actual threat landscape a business may face at any particular point in time. I’ve watched auditors “verify strong authentication for administrator accounts” by typing in pregenerated lists of passwords for a root account such as “password”,”mycat”,”test” etc on a single host in the data center and then come to the finding that strong password policies were enforced. I’ve been asked “do you have a firewall” and “do you have an intrusion detection system” and passed the IT security section of an audit. These are not unreasonable questions but they do little to verify the IT security status of any organization. It is a definite fact that insecure, risky, and improperly configured environments pass these kinds of audits every day giving leaders, customers, and investors very false senses of security curtailing their own responsibilities for due diligence. This is one unseen cost of infosec regulation, responsible parties take less responsibility for security when there are check marks, seals of approval, and audit statements in annual reports. The almost inevitable breach is then met with complete shock. “How were we compromised? We passed every audit!”

Compliance with IT security regulations has spawned mini-industry after mini-industry of miracle compliance tools and technologies that do little to improve on actual security, and sometimes heavily drive FTE and investment costs for little benefit other than simply complying with a particular regulatory requirement. I can think of many specific examples of IT technology I, my employees, or my consulting customers would not have deployed unless they were specifically addressing a regulatory requirement. These are all money and time that could and should have been spent elsewhere to actually mitigate risks present in the environment. Would net security expenditures go down in a regulatory free environment? I don’t think so but as an experienced professional in the field I can come up with clear examples where the money and time would have been spent in more productive ways. This is yet another unseen cost of infosec regulation, the time and money that would be spent on reduction, insurance, and planning around actual risks to the environment. It almost goes without saying that good security products go unpurchased and installed useful tools go minimally used and configured because with limited budget and resources the focus is on those technologies that “ensure compliance.”

The final unseen cost I will note is a result of the barrier to entry to many industries presented by infosec regulations. As stated in the study linked above these regulations are very costly for small organizations to implement. Whereas in the absence of regulation a smaller organization might choose to accept or insure against some risk the regulation forces them to implement some expensive technical and process controls. These costs might very well be the margin which makes these new start up companies and innovative products unprofitable to produce. When referencing the previous points an entrepreneur with a security tool or product might also be deterred from entering the market if the tool could not be sold as a requirement for compliance with a particular regulation. In these ways there is a logical impact on innovation in the IT security and all other industries subject to regulation and thus a major unseen cost to security regulation.

Due to the costs of data breaches and business impact of security incidents those businesses that made poor choices in hiring, projects, and security in general would be punished severely even in the absence of any IT security regulation. The costs due to disrupted operations, IP theft, reputation damage, direct financial theft or fraud need to be measured by business leaders and technologists and appropriate controls must be put in place. Failure to do so should mean failure of the business. The creation of broad, general regulatory frameworks and ineffective auditing for compliance of IT security technology, people, and process diverts resources from addressing actual risks to the business and presents a false sense of security in the literal sense for those decision makers with the actual responsibility to ensure security for their business, customers, partners, investors, and everyone else with a stake in the success of the organization.

Aug
26

Are You Hiding Something (or Compensating)?

One of the unfortunate laws on the books in Massachusetts is more commonly known as the “Assault Weapons Ban.” I will post a series of articles arguing these laws are not effective in preventing any crime in MA and instead are a convoluted set of definitions and pitfalls which unnecessarily restrict otherwise lawfully licensed firearms owners in the state. A bill has been introduced into the MA Legislature to propose a repeal of several sections of the MA General Laws which constitute this “Assault Weapons Ban”. I urge you to support this bill and the repeal of the “Assault Weapons Ban”. (Link to GOAL site)

In this article I will continue my analysis of firearm features that may or may not cause a firearm to be defined as and “Assault Weapon” according to MA General Laws and possible subject the otherwise licensed and lawful owner to as much as 10 years in prison and $10,000 in fines. If you want an introduction or further description of the impact of this legislation of law abiding firearms owners please see my other articles on the topic.

If you recall from previous articles the following conditions would classify a firearm as an “Assault Weapon” (from GOAL’s site on the topic)

a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of–

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon ;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;

 

Let us focus on number 4 above. A semiautomatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine with a flash suppressor (or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor) and at least one other feature from the list above (for example a pistol grip) would be considered an “Assault Weapon”. What is a flash suppressor and why is it so evil? From WikiPedia which actually has a great article on the item in question:

 

 

A flash suppressor, also known as a flash guard, flash eliminator, flash hider, or flash cone, is a device attached to the muzzle of a rifle or other gun that reduces the visible signature of the burning gases that exit the muzzle. This reduces the chances that the shooter will be blinded in dark conditions. A common misconception is that the flash suppressor is used to hide the shooter’s position. This may be incidental, but is not the purpose of the flash suppressor.

Hmmm… That sounds like a safety feature to me? Definitely sounds like something I would want on a firearm that could possibly be used in low light conditions such as home defense. At the very best this section of the “Assault Weapons Ban” makes illegal another small insignificant piece of metal attached to the barrel of a firearm that has no impact on the actual functionality of the firearm (the action, ammunition, rate of fire etc) but at worst this section of the law makes illegal a safety feature protecting the eyesight of the shooter in low light conditions. Again the possession of a firearm with this feature and one other prohibited feature ALONE is enough to risk prosecution for a felony and possibly a 10 year prison sentence.

My common argument stands here as well. No one willing to commit a crime of violence using a firearm is going to be deterred by the threat of prosecution for a 1.5″ metal tube attached to the end of the barrel of said firearm. Possibly this law is also operationally similar to many gun control laws in giving the criminal the advantage. A criminal willing to use this type of firearm in a home invasion or other similar crime, even if they are met by an armed citizen defending their life, has the knowledge that once said lawful citizen has discharged their firearm they will be blinded by flash.

The law also restricts a “threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor”. Thus the installation of this barrel which simply has a 1/2 x 28 RH thread on the end of it onto a semi automatic magazine fed rifle with another prohibited feature triggers the “Assault Weapon” definition.

Commonly semi automatic magazine fed rifles sold and used in MA by law abiding individuals are sold with either a “crowned” barrel similar to the firearm I pictured in my article on bayonet lugs or with a compensator permanently attached to the end of the barrel via a weld or very high temperature solder. Oh I’m sorry… what is that? You can permanently attach a “compensator”? Again from Wikipedia’s article:

Muzzle brakes and recoil compensators are devices that are fitted to the muzzle of a firearm or cannon to redirect propellant gases with the effect of countering both recoil of the gun and unwanted rising of the barrel during rapid fire.[1] Muzzle brakes are very useful for combat and timed competition shooting, and are commonly found on rifles

That’s interesting… So again we are left with a confusing set of restrictions that in the best case only restricts lawful owners of firearms. The prevailing wisdom is a permanently attached compensator on the end of a barrel is not an “Assault Weapon” feature. So I ask you who would call for more gun control laws. Which of the following devices can and cannot be permanently attached to the end of a barrel on a semi automatic magazine fed rifle lawfully possessed after September 13, 1994?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As stated in previous articles Massachusetts is in very small company with just a few other states that would charge you with a felony for possession of a firearm in this configuration. In the majority of our free country 1 1/2″ metal attachments and threads are perfectly legal on the barrels of firearms of this type. This alone presents a severe risk for shooters visiting our state for competitions, training, and other events when they bring firearms or parts of firearms legal in their home jurisdictions.

In my opinion, and I would like to believe, in the opinion of anyone would would defend liberty and civil rights, the possession of a flash hiding device intended to protect the eyesight of a shooter should not subject an otherwise law abiding citizen to 10 years in prison. I therefore urge you and our legislators to support repeal of the “Assault Weapons Ban.”

Aug
25

Why I Sued Classmates.com

Today I received an email informing me that my lawsuit against Classmates.com had been settled in my favor. So I will write a quick blog article telling you all about this case and why I sued Classmates.com.

I have no idea what this case is about, I have no idea why I sued Classmates.com and these are the kind of things that really torque me off lately. What I do know is supposedly I can file a claim for my share of the settlement of this case (~$10) and the lawyers who filed the case will be asking the court for “attorneys’ fees of $1,050,000.00, plus costs”. (http://www.cmemailsettlement.com/)

I will be opting out… Classmates.com never harmed me in any way. I had no idea my name was attached to a class of people for which this lawsuit was filed. These types of lawsuits are completely ridiculous from my perspective. The fact that my name, even in a large aggregate, can be used to threaten another party into settlement for fear of an even larger judgement or costs incurred in defense without me making an affirmative accusation that I believe the defendant harmed me is wrong in all senses of the word.

My inclusion in the class was based on the fact that I had an account with Classmates.com during some specified period. Frankly I didn’t even remember I had such an account, so I clearly wasn’t sitting here steaming about some harm I thought Classmates.com had caused me. Also if I thought I had been harmed I should be completely free to pursue my own actions or not. I wish there was a way to universally exempt myself from all future class action lawsuits.

It seems the height of presumption for plaintiffs to join in a common suit and to press a “class action” suit, in which even those other alleged victims who never heard of or in some way did not consent to a suit are bound by the result. The only plaintiffs who should be affected by a suit are those who voluntarily join. (1)

_________

1 – Rothbard, Murray. “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution” <http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf> : 166

 

 

 

Aug
16

Does Your Grandpa’s Tube Size Matter?

One of the unfortunate laws on the books in Massachusetts is more commonly known as the “Assault Weapons Ban.” I will post a series of articles arguing these laws are not effective in preventing any crime in MA and instead are a convoluted set of definitions and pitfalls which unnecessarily restrict otherwise lawfully licensed firearms owners in the state. Later this week, as I understand it, a bill will be introduced into the MA Legislature to propose a repeal of several sections of the MA General Laws which constitute this “Assault Weapons Ban”. I urge you to support this bill and the repeal of the “Assault Weapons Ban”. (Link to GOAL site)

I am aware showing pictures of AR-15 type rifles and standard capacity Glock magazines doesn’t work in all cases to convince someone of the stupidity of any given gun control law. While there is no logical reason to discriminate based on the appearance of a firearm there are those who see ARs and the like as “scary black guns”. For these people the wood stocked, shotgun that Grandpa had is the type of firearm normal citizens should possess and no other. I won’t directly address that position in this article. I will, however, make a point about ill-conceived law, the “Assault Weapons Ban” and Grandpa’s shotgun.

This was one of those articles I worried about posting because I don’t want to give any of the powers that be in MA any ideas that they haven’t already developed on their own. I also am not saying that I agree with position or statements I am about to write and I am not a lawyer. This article comes from a discussion I read about shotgun capacity and serves as another elegant demonstration of the fact that MA firearms law in general, and the “Assault Weapons Ban” in particular, is not crafted in such a way that even the most critically law abiding among us can avoid being confused.

In previous articles we have focused on features on semi automatic firearms which could trigger that firearm to be classified as an “Assault Weapon” according to the law and “Large Capacity Feeding Devices.” In this article I will go back to the “Large Capacity Feeding Device” discussion for a moment.

This is a shotgun like Grandpa’s. It is a Remington 870 Express Magnum and would be appropriate for hunting lots of different game common to our area. I grew up hunting (almost completely unsuccessfully) deer, pheasants and quail with my Dad using just such a shotgun.

A shotgun like this works by feeding ammunition from the tube that is under the barrel of the firearm. The tube is fixed below the barrel and the shells are loaded in one at at time lengthwise (front of the shell touching the back of the next) into the magazine. There is a spring that pushes these shells into the firearm as the operator works the pump. A semi-automatic tube fed shotgun works exactly the same way except some of the force produced by the firing of the shell drives the action’s motion instead of the user’s hand operating the pump.

Here is a cut away picture of this magazine from the website howstuffworks.com:

Now if you refer back to our previous article on Pez Dispensers you will see that this is just a slightly different kind of dispenser with the tubular candies turned on end. Let’s also at this time review our definition from MA General Laws of “Large Capacity Feeding Device”:

(i) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells; ; or (ii) a large capacity ammunition feeding device as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994. The term “large capacity feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with,.22 caliber ammunition

From the owners manual of the Remington 870 Magnum the tube fixed on that firearm is loaded by the operator being told to:

Push three (3) 3-1/2″ (870 Super Magnum™ only) shells or four (4) 3″ or 2-3/4″ shells

So that tube it is safe to say is “capable of accepting” up to four 3″ shotgun shells. It is not an “Large Capacity Feeding Device” in that case and Grandpa’s shotgun is nothing to worry about from the perspective of the “Assault Weapons Ban”.

Hmmm… What if there were shorter shotgun shells available and the tube could be readily converted to accept them? What if more than five could fit? There are shorter shells available and the tube can accommodate them. Aguila makes a 12ga “mini shell” that is 1.5″ long and loaded to the same pressures as a regular sized 12ga shotgun shell. I have never done this (and I can’t suggest you do it either) but my calculations tell me one could fit EIGHT of these mini shells into the tube of the Remington 870 Express (four 3″ shells fit… so eight 1.5″ shells would fit… at least seven would if the mechanics are a bit off). Would the tube on Grandpa’s wood stocked, hunting gun, be a “Large Capacity Feeding Device” and thus be covered as a prohibited item under the “Assault Weapons Ban” in that case???

Now, I know some of the objections, a shotgun like Grandpa’s above cannot ever be an “Assault Weapon” because it is a pump action shotgun (ok…), some will say Grandpa’s particular shotgun was made before September 13, 1994 and thus the tube is exempt (ok… what about a new one?), some will say no pump action feeding device can ever be considered a “Large Capacity Feeding Device” because no pump action shotgun is a “Large Capacity Weapon” (ok, then tell me about the tube on a semi auto shotgun based on the capability of said tube to accept these shells) and maybe they are right. The prevailing opinion actually seems to be this is NOT a violation of the law. I can’t find that in black and white however, and in general my point is… Why are we forced to have this silly discussion? I have heard otherwise very informed and cautious law abiding firearms owners have this very conversation and read credible opinions on both sides of the issue. I also think it is safe to assume that no one willing to commit a crime with a gun will give any thought to this discussion and the capacity of the tube on their shotgun will not deter them from violence. It is my contention, therefore, that the “Assault Weapons Ban” again can be argued to have no impact on actual violent crime and only serves as a source of confusion and possible prosecution of lawful firearms owners.

Who knows what innovative products may be developed over the years with regard to firearms that have legitimate lawful uses? When a manufacturer (in this case Aguila) decided to make an innovative ammunition product are lawful firearms owners who may not own, may not know about, may not ever want to own said product forced to evaluate their particular legally owned firearms for the “capability to accept” or “readily convertible” nature regarding this product? When language like “capable of accepting” and “readily convertible” are the standards set in law we are forced to think about these very eventualities. We are placed in a position where an over zealous government agent could readily load a brand new pump action 870 shotgun, that looks just like Grandpa’s hunting gun, in front of a jury who knows nothing about firearms with eight “shotgun shells” and have their “AH-HA! Mr. PDogg possessed a Large Capacity Feeding Device” Perry Mason moment. I’m not taking the stance that this tube is in fact a “Large Capacity Feeding Device” I’m only saying I feel there is a legitimate question it is at risk of being classified as one based on the existence of shotgun shells that it is capable of accepting in a condition where it would hold more than five. Here is an additional risk of copying the, now defunct, Federal “Assault Weapons Ban”. At least during the Federal ban the ATF technical branches would respond to a question of this nature. I know of no agency in MA that I could write to get an official ruling on this topic or any other technical innovation that may be developed tomorrow.

If you support these types of regulations do you think Grandpa should go to jail for 10 years for possession of a “Large Capacity Feeding Device” on his turkey gun? Obviously the intent of any law called the “Assault Weapons Ban” was not to have implications for firearms like Grandpa’s turkey gun? Or was it?

In my opinion, and I would like to believe, in the opinion of anyone would would defend liberty and civil rights, the possession of an inert metal tube should not subject an otherwise law abiding citizen to have to have this discussion and debate about whether the tube is capable of accepting some brilliant new invention which might lead the owner to risk 10 years in prison. I therefore urge you and our legislators to support repeal of the “Assault Weapons Ban.”

 

Aug
14

How Alyce Taught Hazlitt

In a slight diversion from my recent posts on MA firearms law (more of those to come soon) I would like to explain a small part of how my now two year old daughter changed my way of looking at the world. This article is a continuation and expansion of a recent email thread between a good friend of mine and I and some of it comes from an article I was writing for who knows what.

Over the past few years my way of looking at the world has changed in many ways. I’m sure I’ll expand on some other points in a later post but for now I’ll concentrate on two changes in thinking that I directly attribute to become a father. I will admit, like many Americans, over the previous 10 or so years I had developed a very immediately focused view of policy and politics. The expedient solution that roughly involved the good guys winning and me getting to keep more of my stuff was almost always the choice I picked. This isn’t to say I always came to the wrong conclusions but I would have to admit a lot of the policies, candidates, and positions I supported were not always what I would champion today.

My daughter was born in July of 2009 and due to some complications she and my wife both stayed in the hospital for extended periods of time. We visited Alyce in the special care nursery for almost six weeks before she could come home with us. There is nothing like an experience such as that to get you investigating some new ways of thinking about life and the world around you ( that is, when you actually have time to think about anything but diapers, getting someone to sleep, feeding someone, playing with someone, watching Elmo etc )

The most profound difference I noticed was I immediately had a different view of what “the long run” or “the future” meant. No longer was I thinking about me, my wife, my job, our retirement, our savings. Suddenly “the future” took on an entirely new definition. “The future” now means Alyce’s future and her children’s future(s) and beyond. Quick fixes to issues are not as important to me as long term, lasting, well constructed solutions. Also, if I or my generation needs to suffer inconvenient circumstances, and make tough trade offs, to truly build a better world for her generation, so be it.

Beyond the time perspective and preferences Alyce has altered, I also both look forward to and fear the day I will have to explain my positions on some critical issues to her. She doesn’t ask “why” yet, but she will some day, I know that. Most troubling of all is I don’t know exactly who she will be, what will be personally important to her, or what her specific individual goals and dreams might be. Some time, maybe in the very distant future I’ll need to explain something to her and I’ll get questioned “why?” She may or may not agree with me but I’ve quickly learned my positions and arguments on the key issues of our day will need to at least logically make sense from the perspective of a person whom I love very dearly but I have no idea what her goals or concerns might be. I won’t always be right (in fact from the perspective of children parents are mostly “wrong”) but I feel a renewed need that there is logical consistency in my point of view. To achieve this goal it is necessary to think about my words and positions from all perspectives, so even when someone disagrees they can think somewhere deep down inside “at least I know where he is coming from.” As another good friend said to me one time while we were talking politics and I was making some illogical personal attack or another, “would you want your kid to hear you say that about someone?”

Beyond getting my point across to someone who may never agree with me it is also more important that I think about any real harm the positions I advocate may do to individuals and groups I may never have directly considered as carefully at earlier phases of my life. This point directly came to me when I was putting Alyce to bed one night ( any parent can understand these lonely and frustrating trials that can make you think philosophically, getting a toddler to sleep on a rough night definitely awaits the truly deserving in Hell ) and is related to the point above. As a parent I know she will be successful and special but I know little about her as a future person and how any particular choice of mine today may impact her. It is far more important with that perspective to see the downstream impacts of your choices on as many likely scenarios for her life as possible.

This isn’t to say I’ve changed every belief I’ve ever had. To the contrary, while I’ve changed my views or manner of thinking about some issues, on some other topics I more deeply hold and viciously defend feelings and ideas I’ve had all along.

Over the past few years I have been tearing through books in a way that is not common for me (I’ve read or consumed on audio book more in the last two years than my whole life combined). Maybe that too is a side effect of becoming a parent, a desire to exercise my mind and learn new things for myself and to teach one day. Somewhere on my reading list was “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt. I got to it only about two months ago and if you have not put this on your own personal reading list I highly recommend it (you can buy it here or even get a free PDF). Anyone that has read this rather short but pointed book (~200 pages) knows exactly where I am going with this the punchline to this article.

There it was on page 5 (LvMI edition linked above) in Hazlitt’s words…

From this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of  economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

Exactly what Alyce had taught me about how to think about problems, solutions, and policy in the world she lives in. She is wise for her age (heck, she taught me a concept it would have taken me 34 years to stumble on in print) and already on a good path, she probably has a lot more to teach me. Now she’s about to be crying and waking up from her nap…

 

Aug
12

The Felonious Little Metal Nub

One of the unfortunate laws on the books in Massachusetts is more commonly known as the “Assault Weapons Ban.” I will post a series of articles arguing these laws are not effective in preventing any crime in MA and instead are a convoluted set of definitions and pitfalls which unnecessarily restrict otherwise lawfully licensed firearms owners in the state. Later this week, as I understand it, a bill will be introduced into the MA Legislature to propose a repeal of several sections of the MA General Laws which constitute this “Assault Weapons Ban”. I urge you to support this bill and the repeal of the “Assault Weapons Ban”. (Link to GOAL site)

In my last article on this topic I explored the “Large Capacity Feeding Device” and some implications of the “Assault Weapons Ban” on specifically shaped Pez dispensers. In this article I will turn my attention to one feature in particular that when present on actual firearms can trigger the firearm in question to be defined as an “Assault Weapon” under MA General Laws and subject an otherwise law abiding, duly licensed, citizen to prosecution and nasty penalties for the mere possession of another inanimate object.

The MA “Assault Weapons Ban” is a near copy of the federal ban that went into effect in 1994 and has since sunset. The MA General Laws reference these federal laws in defining an “Assault Weapon”. One section of that definition in consolidated form basically boils down to the following from GOAL’s site on the issue:

The definition of “assault weapon” is the same as the federal law that went into effect on September 13, 1994. Specific guns are banned by name, and guns with certain combinations of features are banned:

a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of–

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon ;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;

We’ll focus on other features and other types of firearms in a later article. Today I will focus on the “bayonet mount” and the “pistol grip” and demonstrate this law in effect on an actual firearm. This will serve as an continuation of the argument that this law does nothing to prevent actual violent crime and only serves as an unreasonable set of restrictions on lawful firearms owners.

Many long guns (rifles and shotguns) are equipped with a pistol grip. This is for operational design and ergonomics. It is a customary way that humans hold things securely. You will find this feature on firearms designed for many purposes from hunting, to precision target shooting, to self defense. Thus if it appears on a magazine fed (see Pez Dispenser) semi automatic (one bullet is fired per one pull of the trigger, to quote a friend of mine “semi automatic DOES NOT MEAN half a machine gun it means it fires once for one complete pull of the trigger”) rifle (shoulder fired firearm with a barrel >= 16″ in MA) this rifle may not have any of the other features listed above or it is considered an “Assault Weapon” and the possessor, even if they have a valid Massachusetts firearms license, is subject to punishment “for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment”. There exists the same exception as exists for the Pez Dispenser that the possession is only a crime if the firearm was “not lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994″ (this is generally interpreted to mean “in an assault weapon configuration” on or before 9/13/1994)

This is a picture of a semi automatic magazine fed rifle which is  legal to possess and transfer by anyone in MA with the proper licensing. This firearm is NOT an “Assault Weapon” by legal definition. It is a semi automatic, magazine fed rifle manufactured in 2008 and is currently in my safe.

I will now graphically modify this firearm (via photoshop because I do not want to commit a felony) in such a way as to place it into a theoretical “Assault Weapons Ban” configuration. Here is the “Assault Weapon”

I’m sorry… Did you miss that edit? What changed?

I added a “bayonet mount” to the picture which amounts to about a 1/2″ solid block of metal just below the front sight. That is it, same firearm, same ammunition, same action, same operation. This metal protrusion has absolutely no impact on the functionality of the firearm itself. Here is a zoomed version of my photoshop along with a picture of an actual bayonet lug from the web since I am afraid to own and do not own an actual bayonet mount for this rifle.

That little metal nub is a protrusion on the front sight post of these firearms designed originally to mount and secure a bayonet to the end of the military versions of these rifles. THAT little metal nub is so evil that just the possession of that nub on the wrong place on an otherwise completely legal firearm would instantly turn the duly licensed lawful owner into a criminal subject to felony charges??? You don’t have to affix the bayonet, you don’t have to own a bayonet, you don’t have to load the rifle, you just have to add that little metal nub to an otherwise completely legal rifle to risk becoming a convicted felon and some might argue you don’t even need to have it ON the firearm (in some cases like this there is a danger of being accused of some sort of “constructive possession” of a prohibited item simply because you own all the parts and COULD put them together).

Of course there is similar exception for the metal nub as there is for the Pez dispenser. The firearm is legal in the configuration with the pistol grip AND the metal nub if it was “lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994″. So again we have a statement that old metal nubs on old firearms are ok but on new, otherwise identical firearms, metal nubs constitute a felony.

Massachusetts is in very small company with just a few other states that would charge you with a felony for possession of a firearm in this configuration. In the majority of our free country 1/2″ metal protrusions are perfectly legal on firearms of this type. This alone presents a severe risk for shooters visiting our state for competitions, training, and other events when they bring firearms or parts of firearms legal in their home jurisdictions.

I would be hard pressed to come up with an argument that the banning of this 1/2″ piece of steel prevents or reduces violent crime. Again, someone using a firearm to commit a crime will not be deterred by laws banning small parts of the firearm with particular manufacture dates. Having a 1/2″ nub does not somehow make this firearm “more deadly” for use in crime. In fact I have a challenge:  I will donate $1000 to a charity of their choice in the name of anyone (first verified submission, one winner only) who can find me a murder or other criminal violent attack committed in Massachusetts with a fixed bayonet on a semi automatic magazine fed rifle in which the bayonet was used to injure the victim before 8/12/2011.

In my opinion, and I would like to believe, in the opinion of anyone would would defend liberty and civil rights, the possession of a 1/2″ inert metal nub should not subject an otherwise law abiding citizen to 10 years in prison. I therefore urge you and our legislators to support repeal of the “Assault Weapons Ban.”

Go back to top